| OCR Text |
Show 1 ffdfcrl**- / 4 -J f-> I OJ A> ^ / O ^ The Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is not economically justified using the cost/benefit ratio traditionally required for federal government participating projects, and in fact, proliferates with erroneous "padding" to obtain federal support, and,.attempt to answer its critics. That is the conclusion of astudy recently released by Dr. Thomas M. Power, Phd., associate professor of economics at the University of Montana. His report, "An Economic Analysis of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Projsct, Bureau of Reclamation," concludes the Bureau has "grossly exaggerated" the net benefits of the CUP in an attempt to obtain federal particif&ation in the project. Dr. Power cites 11 areas of padding and/or error in the cost/benefit ratio. Dr. Power's study is published in a 208-page "Issues Paper, the Central Utah Profect, Part I," recently released by Citizens for a Responsible CUP0 Dorothy Harvey, CRCUP chairwoman, says the Power study was done independently of the Issues report, but like the Issues Report addresses only economic aspects of the project. "Environmental factors are not studied except as the relate directly to monetary aspects," Harvey said. Ecological losses will be addressed in a subsequent Issues paper, she adds. Dr. Power's study,funded by the Audubon Society, concludes that instead of the 1:1 ratio claimed by th&Bureau of Reclamation, and necessary to justi-fy federal participation in the CUP, 11 areas of padding and/or error reduce the cost benefit ratio to one dollar:32 cents. |
